Confusion in the Media Meme

Over at the Belmont Club the other night, Richard Fernandez asked Who is Barack Obama? In the comment section he referenced the reporter in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, who said when truth vies with legend "print the legend." And then Richard Observed:

But there is another, less common meaning to the word “legend.” It refers to a cover story under which a real person travels. It doesn’t necessarily connote espionage, but rather to a collection of plausible or alleged biographical facts which conceal another story.

I offered my own take, reprinted (no doubt for the first time ever) here:

Part of the attraction of Gov. Palin is the counter narrative of her life to Sen. Obama’s legend (in Richard use of the term). Her story is extreme but extremely inside the American tradition and his is extreme but extremely on the margins — as a self exile. He is a man without a “Country” but with a “World” of his own.

What I find troubling about O is he don’t have “normal” friends to add ballast for all his past weird associations. In fact, he don’t even have weird associates who are weird in a different way, to sort of cancel each other out. They are all weird in the same stinking way. Even Dude in The Big Lebowski had associates who were weird in a variety of ways, not the same stinking way. OK, I’m referencing movies. Time to go to bed.

It was late. But it does seem to be working out that way. Her story (and her family story) is stepping all over Sen. Obama's story -- or self spun legend -- almost to the point that he is now running against her. Is she as qualified to be President as he is? Or, put another way, is he as qualified as she is? Or put the Drudge way, "I've got more experience than her." On Anderson Cooper 360 the Senator said:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded.

So if the Presidential campaign were only three months longer, she'd be qualified by the end of it.

But then she did negotiate a multi-billion dollar natural gas pipeline deal with Cananda and renegotiated the royalty deal with the Oil Companies on the North Slope. She cut the budget in Alaska. He helped it grow, big time, in DC.

I think the media needs to tear down her authentic legend and polish up the spun-up legend of Senator Obama. It is "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" time.

Doom for Democrats

Is it really possible? Could the man I describe as "Spengler, the Phlegmatic End Timer" in my blog roll, be a Democrat? And is he pronouncing the DOOM of the Democratic party?

DENVER - Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week seemed vastly different from the stands of this city's Invesco Stadium than it did to the 40 million who saw it on television. Melancholy hung like think smog over the reserved seats where I sat with Democratic Party staffers. The crowd, of course, cheered mechanically at the tag lines, flourished placards, and even rose for the obligatory wave around the stadium. But its mood was sour. The air carried the acrid smell of defeat, and the crowd took shallow breaths. Even the appearance of R&B great Stevie Wonder failed to get the blood pumping.

Hmm. Who is this guy? A spy? Is he even a guy? And what if his name really is Spengler? That would fool everyone. He goes on:

On television, Obama's spectacle might have looked like The Ten Commandments, but inside the stadium it felt like Night of the Living Dead. The longer the candidate spoke, and the more money he promised to spend on alternative energy, preschool education, universal health care, and other components of the Democratic pinata, the lower the party professionals slouched into their seats.

Well, now. Deep, deep, well now. Maybe Spengler is Warren Christopher. Just a guess.

It is a worthy read.

UPDATE: Crush Earth Right Now

The Palin Family Saves Social Security

First I would like to wish Bristol, her soon to be husband, their coming bundle of joy, and the entire Palin Family the very best. And I would like to thank them for doing what the Democrats absolutely refuse to do: their part (and more) to save Social Security. As long as the Democrats keep it a "pay as you go" transfer payment program, we will need "the taxpayers of the Future." My guess is the Palin kids will not only serve the country well, but pay lots of taxes, too. I know the AARP won't say this, so I will: Thank you. And keep them future taxpayers coming.

But only if that is your choice, of course.

UPDATE: Instalanche! Did I spell that right? My spell check says no. It got to be a word by now, doesn't it? Who decides these things? The little wikis? Is "wikis" spelled right? My spell check says no. Who decides? Who decides ketchup is a vegetable? Did I spell ketchup right? My spell check says yes, but I no longer trust it.

American Schlubbish

Well, Sen. Obama sure can give a good speech. Of course, he's allowed to basically say anything as long as it sounds good. If the Devil is in the Details, the devil wasn't in Senator Obama's oratory.

Rather than accepting the nomination, it seemed to me Sen. Obama was accepting the nation (the country sounds like a real "fixer upper"). The "One" of the McCain Campaign attack ads has become the "I" of the acceptance speech. The "I" will do this (treat the sick and not pander to insurance companies) and the "I" will do that (stand up to tyrants and make our alliances strong again). The "I" will make our schools excellent and the "I" will ask that teachers do a few things, too -- but only ask. But there is a "we," too. There is a "we" who should realize that "we" are a nation of schlubs who will make it very hard on the "I" who wants to help the "we" while at the same time making the nation less schlubish -- give it some je ne sais quoi. But the "I" does sais quoi. And so do his adoring fans, whose very look says, "You are right, Barack, I can't tie my shoes without your help!"

I (by which I mean me) think Sen. Obama broke one of the basic rules of influencing others, as taught back in, say, 1964. And that is: Avoid using the word "I" and try using the word "You." Try to make people feel central to the project, and not like schlub spear carriers in a biblical epic starring "Me, Myself, and I." But outsized egos are in style these days.

Sen. Obama sees two Americas: the Politicians and the schlubs. And he's not too sure about the politicians, but you work with what you got. All and all, it sounded to me like he wants to get America cheap by selling it short.

History stuck in a suburban Cul-du-sac. Which way should it go?

Yes, it's true: They Can Only Go So Far, as Francis Ford Fukuyama says (oops, there is no Ford in the name -- I mistook the Director of History with the Director). Various Writers, he opines, "...have suggested that we are now witnessing a return to the Cold War, the return of History or, at a minimum, a return to a 19th-century world of clashing great powers." Ever notice how famous he has become explaining himself? One bad idea ("The End of History") and his career was made. He's like the Middle East Expert to the world: always wrong and always in demand, but on a bigger stage. Now, I've been explaining my bad ideas for...well, we won't go there. In any case, Francis goes on to advise Various Writers (an ancient Roman Pundit, I think):

Not so fast. We are certainly moving into what Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria labels a "post-American" world. But while bullies can still throw their weight around, democracy and capitalism still have no real competitors. The facile historical analogies to earlier eras have two problems: They presuppose a cartoonish view of international politics during these previous periods, and they imply that "authoritarian government" constitutes a clearly defined type of regime -- one that's aggressive abroad, abusive at home and inevitably dangerous to world order. In fact, today's authoritarian governments have little in common, save their lack of democratic institutions. Few have the combination of brawn, cohesion and ideas required to truly dominate the global system, and none dream of overthrowing the globalized economy.

Well, may I be frank, Frank? I would not bet the farm on your ability to interpret the dreams of a megalomaniac and sociopath who excelled during his career in the "Organs of State Security." Still, it is good to know the Tyrant's grasp will seldom exceed his reach -- though those constant stretch exercises are worrisome.

But the real threat may not be foreign tyranny. It may be those "Private-Public Partnerships" that both bureaucrats and Capitalists (and major media) are fond of promoting. After all, Capitalist are not ever-faithful fans of Free Markets, by and large. They are for free markets when it advantages them. But once on top, the advantages of having the Government steer money and customers your way are greater than the advantages the Free Market offers. Besides, the power of Government may be used against you if you are not using it against someone else. So the real danger may be government created -- but privately run and government connected -- cartels. They will be disguised, of course. But they will first take away economic and social freedom -- and then political freedom, as well. This will all be done in the name of planning or promoting some social good (affordable housing, health care, wind to power and natural gas to cars etc., etc., etc and so on and so forth!).

"But while bullies can still throw their weight around, democracy and capitalism still have no real competitors." Not true. The competitor is State Capitalism or The Corporate State. Call it "fascism with a velvet glove" -- over the mailed fist. This is not the "fascism" shouted by the Left, but the Fascism practiced by the Left. And it could take a giant step forward if Sen. Obama wins -- and perhaps a tiny step back if McCain wins, though a slower advance is more likely.

Current History will end with a whimper. It will be "feudalism with the right sort of people in charge." Francis and Fareed will be Barons in the new Aristocracy of Credentials (excuse me, Merit). So the future holds no terrors for these two. Nor for me: I plan on getting a law degree at night school.

The Eleven "10 percent" Solutions

I was watching the Olympics and was therefore forced to watch an Obama Campaign Ad. It was about energy -- the Obama-nation of our energy supplies.

Our national energy policy is a four legged stool: 1) continued use of the traditional hydrocarbon sources of energy; 2) the expansion of same over the short and medium term; 3) getting more "work" from the traditional sources (conservation/efficiency); 3) Developing Alternative sources to replace traditional sources as that becomes both necessary and economical.

The Obama Campaign energy policy, as put forth in the ad I saw, would cut off two of the legs: Traditional sources of energy and the expansion of same. It would largely make the conservation leg redundant (getting more "work" from mostly traditional sources). His policy is to ruin the tax paying, low cost "legs" while heavily subsidizing the higher cost, budget devouring "alternative leg."

So, after hacking at three of the legs with his rhetorical hatchet, Sen. Obama has left us with the "pogo stick plan." If the nation actually jumps on that pogo stick (as opposed to a politician -- the politician -- hopping on it and hoping to win the race) the nation will surely experience a crash. This should surprise no one: it is, after all, a "crash plan."

Instead of the "pogo stick for America plan," why not return to our traditional approach and simply make it work better? So while I will concentrate on production here, I believe all the legs are important and unlike the Democrats I do not recommend hacking off of any of them.

The eleven "10 percent" Solutions

The energy production leg of the stool has been badly neglected and needs to be addressed. The world has plenty of oil that can be harvested at $60 a barrel. So Republican should announce the goal of bringing the world price of oil down to $60 a barrel by encouraging supply increase and demand restraint. The problem is, how do we get there? The trap is getting caught arguing that any one action will be a solution. That is why I recommend eleven "10 percent" solutions -- the first is remembering there are ten of them and each forms a part of the "100 percent" total solution.

How do we cut the world price of oil in half? I am not a expert in the field so this list is an incomplete "suggested" starting point.

1. Keep the Alaskan oil pipeline full (it does not have to be ANWR oil -- there is other available oil in that part of the arctic). Perhaps the pipeline could also be "doubled up" (as it was originally designed) with a second pipe to bring natural gas to market. It does not make sense to flare gas off above the arctic circle while heating prices go up in the US. Apparently the Russians are building an LNG terminal in Mexico. Perhaps Alaskan LNG could be offloaded there and marketed in California.
   
2. Offshore drilling. Why should Republicans worry about what screen actors in Malibu think? Add California to the list (or at least keep it as a threat).
3. International cooperation to lower the price. It is, after all, a world problem. Perhaps there is room for international guarantees for oil workers and investors whereby the pirates that prey on the oil industry (and cut supply) could be severely "sanctioned" by consuming nations.
4. Additional Nuclear.
5. I like the idea of the jet powered SUV hybrid that goes from 0 to 60 like a muscle car but gets 60 mpg. That's conservation! I ran across it in popular mechanics, so it might not be doable for the average Joe.
   

The following might qualify as "six" and "seven," but are perhaps too complicated for a political campaign.

Shell has an environmentally friendly system to produce oil from shale "in situ" at a cost of $30 a barrel. The technique was developed in the US and they are going to put it to work producing oil -- in the Middle East, of course. This is at the insistence of the Democrat Congress. Way to go, guys (is Mary Landrieu a guy?).

Instead, the Democrats want sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve -- this is a one off political stunt whose only effect on the oil price might be to raise it in the future (by reducing easily tapped reserves). But twinned with the development of Oil Shale it could produce both short and long term downward pressure on oil prices.

When oil is above $90 a barrel we will sell a set amount from the reserve. The money will go into a fund. Those who develop oil shale deposits will agree to replace the oil at $60 a barrel -- but at any point over a period of ten years. They can sell the rest of their production at world market prices. In other words, it would be an implicit price guarantee of $60 dollars a barrel for a set amount of oil. This would provide insurance for when the market price of oil falls to say, $35 a barrel -- a price that would make production uneconomic.

If there is a refinery built nearby that relies on shale oil, it can count on a supply of oil at the world market price for at least a set period. The oil that is returned to the Strategic Reserve is bought on the world market at $35. It is twinned with a barrel of shale oil that is sold at the world market price of $35 to the refinery. But the shale oil producer collects $25 from the fund established by the original sales from the strategic reserve. (The refinery might be a captive of shale oil production and not hooked into the world oil market). There might be a world price trigger price of below $40 a barrel, say.

Six and seven are aimed at making shale oil an immense strategic reserve that can be ramped up over several years in a period of shortages. Full commercial development should be based on the economics involved, not subsidies. The infrastructure can be "over built" to help it fill the strategic reserve role, should the market not favor commercial development (in other words, the world price has dived -- a good thing).

And here's a possible "big" Number Eight: There is no Big Oil -- Only Big Government/little oil. The biggest oil companies are mostly government owned and operated. The ones that are not run by governments are bound up in so much red tape they are the abused captives of bureaucrats. We need less government, more oil -- and more freedom.

Number Nine? Convincing the Democrats in Congress to leave OPEC. OPEC raises prices by restricting supply. By that measure the Democrats are the most important member of the group. If they left the group, it would likely fall apart as supplies increased and prices came down.

As I say, a partial list. All are welcomed to make suggestions.

Perhaps House Republicans can come up with an easily understood list of "actions for lower gas prices" and make it an issue.

Update: Jon Utley has a good take that fits with the above. You fact obsessed folks should read: Open ANWR Already!

Also, when the Democrats say opening ANWR would only save "pennies on the gallon" the estimated price when the field came into production was $50 a barrel (2006 dollars). I think they are wrong on the "pennies on the gallon" (it's a dollar or more) and right on the $50 a barrel. Because if we produce, everyone will. See the footnote one at the bottom of this Wilderness Society anti drilling screed (pdf file). The footnote contains a dead link to The Energy Information Agency. Is it policy to toss the embarrassingly off estimates down the memory hole?

The Senate Yacht Club Comes out against Oil Development

Well, we know the exclusive Senate Yachting Club opposes windmills off the coast because they might have to look at them when they go sailing. Now the Senate Yacht Club has come out against developing our off shore oil resources.

Sen. Graham, (a Republican, unfortunately) is fronting on this one. I believe he is on the Yachting Club Board. I think he is the chaplain. At least on this issue he is a spokesman for the group. Basically, the Senate Yachting Club wants to keep oil platforms well away from anywhere they might go sailing and they might go sailing pretty much anywhere.

You see, lots of just plain Senate folks go to Davos, Switzerland in the winter and ski and make friends while they are there. And they invite these ski friends to come to the US and go sailing and become sailing friends. Naturally, they don't want them to have to look at an oil rig on the edge of the horizon. In fact, just the thought there might be an oil rig out there would disturb them, because they are quite intelligent and sensitive personages. Now I'm sure we all don't want them to develop the psychological scars that seeing a rig in the middle of a hundred miles of grey ocean might cause -- not when paying a mere two bucks a gallon more for gas would prevent it.

As for energy independence, that is a fairy tale. Of course, that don't mean the Yacht Club won't find ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on it. But if to them energy independence is a fairy tale, at least the dollars they spend chasing the chimeras will be real (otherwise the special interest groups will get testy).

Though the Senate Yacht Club is against having five windmills off Nantucket, they are for having five million windmills in the "wind blessed" Midwest. The reason for this is simple: they don't go sailing in the Midwest. Meanwhile, they are realistic and realize that Washington DC, which they represent, needs power -- lots and lots of power -- and it got to come from somewhere. Why not the rest of the Country? I mean, what's it there for?

In a few years, when Midwesterners go driving, they can play "count the windmills" with their children. So a mother will say, "Becky, how many windmills have you counted on your side of the road?" And Becky will say, "1,482." And the mother will say, "and Tommy, how many have you counted on your side?" And Tommy will say, "845,362." And the mother will say, "Gee, boys are better at math."